BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

62 results for “depreciation”+ Section 254(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai984Delhi659Chennai226Bangalore208Kolkata132Ahmedabad132Surat86Jaipur68Hyderabad64Pune62Chandigarh61Cochin40Raipur39Karnataka28Lucknow27Indore22Guwahati19SC13Amritsar10Cuttack9Rajkot9Visakhapatnam8Telangana7Nagpur7Panaji7Calcutta6Agra4Varanasi3Kerala2Ranchi2Jodhpur2Jabalpur2Dehradun2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 17172Section 143(3)63Section 12A48Depreciation35Section 1131Addition to Income30Section 10(20)24Deduction23Disallowance23Section 80I

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 323/PUN/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Sept 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Chadraker
Section 10ASection 14ASection 35Section 35(1)

254" however, the facts of the case are not identical. Hence, the same should be treated as international transaction and should be; added to the total income of the assessee. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C1T(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer amounting of Rs.64683703

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. MAHARASHTRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION, PUNE, PUNE

Showing 1–20 of 62 · Page 1 of 4

20
Section 26314
Section 92C12

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 694/PUN/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jun 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: \nShri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: \nShri Amol Khairnar
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 2(15)

depreciation\nof Rs.17,67,439/-, capital expenditure being application of Rs.\n23,02,72,512/- and deficit brought forward of Rs.58,64,46,708/- and\nclaimed total of these of Rs.97,28,31,592/- as deduction and arrived at\ntotal income of Rs. NIL in view of exemption u/s 11 claiming application of\nincome of more than 85% and working

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1154/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

depreciation on the same will also be allowed. 17. So far as the issue of contribution to approved superannuation fund is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on various decisions held that deduction in respect of contribution made to approved superannuation fund within limit prescribed will be wholly allowed in assessment year relating to previous year in which payment

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1155/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

depreciation on the same will also be allowed. 17. So far as the issue of contribution to approved superannuation fund is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on various decisions held that deduction in respect of contribution made to approved superannuation fund within limit prescribed will be wholly allowed in assessment year relating to previous year in which payment

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1153/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

depreciation on the same will also be allowed. 17. So far as the issue of contribution to approved superannuation fund is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on various decisions held that deduction in respect of contribution made to approved superannuation fund within limit prescribed will be wholly allowed in assessment year relating to previous year in which payment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 544/PUN/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

depreciation on the same will also be allowed. 17. So far as the issue of contribution to approved superannuation fund is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on various decisions held that deduction in respect of contribution made to approved superannuation fund within limit prescribed will be wholly allowed in assessment year relating to previous year in which payment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 545/PUN/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

depreciation on the same will also be allowed. 17. So far as the issue of contribution to approved superannuation fund is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on various decisions held that deduction in respect of contribution made to approved superannuation fund within limit prescribed will be wholly allowed in assessment year relating to previous year in which payment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 543/PUN/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

depreciation on the same will also be allowed. 17. So far as the issue of contribution to approved superannuation fund is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on various decisions held that deduction in respect of contribution made to approved superannuation fund within limit prescribed will be wholly allowed in assessment year relating to previous year in which payment

MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2396/PUN/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R.G. NaharFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Babu
Section 10(29)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 263

2. The issue raised in the appeal has its genesis in assessment year 2002-03. The assessee is a State Government Undertaking engaged in providing warehouse facilities in the State of Maharashtra. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2002-03 declaring Nil income. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Income

MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2397/PUN/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R.G. NaharFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Babu
Section 10(29)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 263

2. The issue raised in the appeal has its genesis in assessment year 2002-03. The assessee is a State Government Undertaking engaged in providing warehouse facilities in the State of Maharashtra. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2002-03 declaring Nil income. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Income

MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2398/PUN/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R.G. NaharFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Babu
Section 10(29)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 263

2. The issue raised in the appeal has its genesis in assessment year 2002-03. The assessee is a State Government Undertaking engaged in providing warehouse facilities in the State of Maharashtra. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2002-03 declaring Nil income. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Income

MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2399/PUN/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R.G. NaharFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Babu
Section 10(29)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 263

2. The issue raised in the appeal has its genesis in assessment year 2002-03. The assessee is a State Government Undertaking engaged in providing warehouse facilities in the State of Maharashtra. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2002-03 declaring Nil income. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE vs. M/S. BILCARE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 273/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta
Section 92C

2) or 74(1) except when the loss has not been C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 determined in pursuance of return of income filed in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 139. 55. The Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nalva Investments Ltd. in ITA No.822/2005, judgment dated 07.08.2020 in a case involving

M/S. BILCARE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 334/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta
Section 92C

2) or 74(1) except when the loss has not been C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 determined in pursuance of return of income filed in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 139. 55. The Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nalva Investments Ltd. in ITA No.822/2005, judgment dated 07.08.2020 in a case involving

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, ICHALKARANJI vs. PARIKH SHANKARLAL KUNDANMAL,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 734/PUN/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.733 To 736/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2006-07 & 2009-10

For Appellant: M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 143(3)Section 80I

section 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The assessee has filed Cross Objections against the appeals of Revenue. 2. This bunch of four appeals and Cross Objections relating to same assessee were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. In order to adjudicate

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, ICHALKARANJI vs. PARIKH SHANKARLAL KUNDANMAL,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 736/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.733 To 736/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2006-07 & 2009-10

For Appellant: M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 143(3)Section 80I

section 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The assessee has filed Cross Objections against the appeals of Revenue. 2. This bunch of four appeals and Cross Objections relating to same assessee were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. In order to adjudicate

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, ICHALKARANJI vs. PARIKH SHANKARLAL KUNDANMAL,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 735/PUN/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.733 To 736/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2006-07 & 2009-10

For Appellant: M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 143(3)Section 80I

section 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The assessee has filed Cross Objections against the appeals of Revenue. 2. This bunch of four appeals and Cross Objections relating to same assessee were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. In order to adjudicate

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, ICHALKARANJI vs. PARIKH SHANKARLAL KUNDANMAL,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 733/PUN/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.733 To 736/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2006-07 & 2009-10

For Appellant: M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 143(3)Section 80I

section 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The assessee has filed Cross Objections against the appeals of Revenue. 2. This bunch of four appeals and Cross Objections relating to same assessee were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. In order to adjudicate

SUNGARD SOLUTIONS (INDIA) P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 338/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 154Section 40Section 92C

depreciation. Thus, the ground of the assessee is allowed. 6. Ground No.2 is with respect to denial of deduction u/s 10A with respect to Unit No.I, Bangalore. 6.1 AO has noted that assessee has not claimed deduction u/s 10A of the Act for the Unit I, Bangalore in the return of income but subsequently, during the assessment proceedings

M/S SUNGARD SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 540/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 154Section 40Section 92C

depreciation. Thus, the ground of the assessee is allowed. 6. Ground No.2 is with respect to denial of deduction u/s 10A with respect to Unit No.I, Bangalore. 6.1 AO has noted that assessee has not claimed deduction u/s 10A of the Act for the Unit I, Bangalore in the return of income but subsequently, during the assessment proceedings